Court allows patenting of stem cell technologies

A court in Germany has given a “glimmer of hope” to inventors hoping to patent human embryonic stem cell technologies in Europe.

January 10, 2013

In interpreting a landmark decision by the European Court of Justice, the German Federal Court of Justice has ruled that technologies involving cells derived from human embryonic stem cells that do not directly involve the destruction of human embryos can be patented.

The court upheld a patent awarded to University of Bonn professor Oliver Brustle, which had been disputed in a legal challenge by Greenpeace under the EU Biotechnology Directive, which bans the use of human embryos for industrial and commercial purposes.

In a decision in October 2011, the European Court of Justice ruled that technologies that have at any stage involved the destruction of a human embryo could not be patented, leading stem cell researchers to fear that translational research in Europe might suffer. There is thought to be no similar restriction on patenting outside Europe.

However, in interpreting this ruling on November 2012, the German court determined that in vitro cells derived from the blastocyst stage of embryo development did not themselves have the capability to develop into people, and therefore did not count as human embryos.

The ruling means that, except when stem cells are harvested by destroying human embryos, cells derived from human embryonic stem cells can be patented.

The court upheld - in an amended form - Professor Brustle’s patent, which was originally granted in 1999 for producing neural precursor cells, which have the potential to treat neurological disorders such as Parkinson’s disease.

“This is good news for biomedical researchers worldwide,” said Paul Chapman, partner at UK patent law firm Marks & Clerk. “Those who want to protect inventions relating to human embryonic stem cells in Europe now have a glimmer of hope following the disappointment of [the] European decision.”

Following the 2011 judgment, the European Patent Office and the UK Intellectual Property Office implemented guidelines prohibiting patents on stem cells derived from blastocysts altogether, he said.

“These guidelines were seen by many as very narrow. There is a prospect that the current restrictive guidelines by the EPO and the UKIPO may be revised in light of this decision,” added Mr Chapman.

elizabeth.gibney@tsleducation.com.

You've reached your article limit.

Register to continue

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments
Register

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Featured Jobs

Technical Officer (Paramedic)

Staffordshire University

Professor in Marketing

Henley Business School

Lecturer or Senior Lecturer in Social Work

University Of The West Of Scotland

Research Service Manager

London School Of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (lshtm)
See all jobs

Most Commented

Daniel Mitchell illustration (29 June 2017)

Academics who think they can do the work of professional staff better than professional staff themselves are not showing the kind of respect they expect from others

As the pay of BBC on-air talent is revealed, one academic comes clean about his salary

Senior academics at Teesside University put at risk of redundancy as summer break gets under way

Capsized woman and boat

Early career academics can be left to sink or swim when navigating the choppy waters of learning scholarly writing. Helen Sword says a more formal, communal approach can help everyone, especially women

Thorns and butterflies

Conditions that undermine the notion of scholarly vocation – relentless work, ubiquitous bureaucracy – can cause academics acute distress and spur them to quit, says Ruth Barcan